Presidential Vote

[Guest LadyC]

i didn't even finish reading all that bad fruit stuff. i read some that were so absolutely false that it wasn't worth wasting my time on the others.

gay and lesbian activists can not stand bush. his policies are not identical to clinton's. bush is currently in the middle of a big backlash because he is behind the federal ammendment to ban gay marriages.

because some of those "bad fruit" listings are incorrect, it renders the rest of the list suspect at best.

[WatchingForJesus]

i didn't even finish reading all that bad fruit stuff. i read some that were so absolutely false that it wasn't worth wasting my time on the others.

gay and lesbian activists can not stand bush. his policies are not identical to clinton's. bush is currently in the middle of a big backlash because he is behind the federal ammendment to ban gay marriages.

because some of those "bad fruit" listings are incorrect, it renders the rest of the list suspect at best.

LadyC,

I implore you to really take a close look at the federal marriage ammendment. Although it appears on the surface that it is against gay marriages, it really is worthless because it also states on the back end that the issue of "civil unions" (which is just as bad as marriage) is going to be left up to the individual states.

So, someone who wants to look anti-gay, can promote the life out of the federal marriage ammendment and it won't really do anything towards stopping "civil unions" between same sex couples.

So, I say that just because George W. Bush is backing the federal marriage ammendment doesn't really mean that he is anti-gay.

I'm sorry to use that word "anti-gay", it sounds so horrible, but I am not sure what other word one would use to describe the stance of being the opposite of "pro-gay".

I don't have a problem with you taking issue with some of the things on the list. As David Bay stated before he started the list, if you can prove him wrong, or if you can find other "good fruit", he would like to hear from you so that he can update his list.

David clearly points out, documented evidence for each occurence on the list. I would love for you to show exactly how he is wrong, by presenting proof to the contrary rather than just stating that you don't agree.

Please don't take my requesting this as me wanting to pick a fight with you or argue with you. I am humbly asking you to show me otherwise, so that if you are correct, that I might change my stance.

Thanks for understanding!

YBIC,

Bradley

[Guest LadyC]

as opposed to the constitution party's stance that there should be no federal ammendment and gay marriage is a state's issue. hmmm.... i smell a touch of hypocrisy.

bottom line, homosexuality exists. an ammendment would protect the sanctity of marriage. but it will never pass if it doesn't leave the states with the right to determine civil unions.

sorry, i don't buy the spin.

[Catsmeow]

THE MACRO VIEWPOINT

Truth is that nobody here is for gay marriage OR civil unions... sometimes we're in a position where we don't know WHO to back.

In other words...what are the options? Is GWB against the wall? Is he in a no-win scenario? Can he act without the Congress and Senate? Will they back him if he says NO WAY!

We just dont' see behind the scenes. We don't know what's really going on...and that's what's frustrating. We mean well but only God himself knows the whole truth and what's in a man's heart.

What are we doing? Speculating based on the limited information we have.

But God took the guess work out of it for us.

Look, God told us, "IF my people who are called my my name will repent and turn from their wicked ways I will heal their land..." (paraphrased).

Look, God can make things right again as long as WE, the people of God are on our knees in prayer and in our hearts devoted to Him.

He hasn't destroyed this Sodom of a nation YET because of godly Christians.

His patience WILL run out...I can only hope God will take us out of Sodom ..send His holy angels to take us out of here and then do what He must do according to His righteous decrees.

[JohnS]

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in

Florida!!!!

Our military is GREAT!

************** written by SGM VIRGINIA D. CASE ***************

The way I see it:

There is the evil that is plain as day and there are 1,000,001 conspiracy theories.

[WatchingForJesus]

as opposed to the constitution party's stance that there should be no federal ammendment and gay marriage is a state's issue. hmmm.... i smell a touch of hypocrisy.

bottom line, homosexuality exists. an ammendment would protect the sanctity of marriage. but it will never pass if it doesn't leave the states with the right to determine civil unions.

sorry, i don't buy the spin.

LadyC,

That is a very valid point and one that I struggle with. The current federal marriage ammendment (even if it does actually pass) isn't going to be worth the paper it's written on because of the back end part that allows the states to decide what to do about "civil unions".

In regard to the Constitution Party, their stance is this --- In no way, shape, or form should the federal government start telling the states what they can and can not do, which is why they are opposed to the federal marriage ammendment.

Although I understand how you can smell hypocrisy here, to me, it is more of a dilema.

Truthfully, the ONLY way that we can have an effect on "civil unions" between same sex couples is to fight it on the individual state levels. This is where I think that the churches and Christian Leaders need to be spending their time, because frankly, it does no good to "back" the federal marriage ammendment.

Here is my point on Bush backing the federal marriage ammendment. Just because someone says they are in favor of the federal marriage ammendment, doesn't make them a Christian. Am I judging wether he is a Christian or not? NO!!!!! Of course, only God knows that! However, it is stated in the Bible that we shall know them by their fruits.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.(KJV)

Based on my previous post about "W's" fruits, frankly, he doesn't bear much good fruit, and so it really has to make you wonder. That is all I am trying to say about that.

YBIC,

Bradley

[eric]

Yeh your are right John.S. The snowball of corruption is on the way downhill and is getting bigger and faster by the day and only God has the power to stop it, as Cats quoted from 2.Chron.7:14. But hey who listens to God today. Everybody is worrying about there own skin.

Take it easy out there and have a good day.

eric.

[Guest LadyC]

i told you what i thought of your list of his fruits. but we'll skip that part and go on to this.

GOD defined marriage. HE defined it as between man and woman. marriage is a HOLY union. (or should be anyway.)

there are all sorts of other contractual unions, whether between a man and a woman or between corporations or whatever. the one GOD defines is marriage.

homosexuality is here to stay, unfortunately. and christians are not going to be able to get the ACLU and other activists off the issue.

the federal ammendment SHOULD be imposed, forget the 'states rights issue'. why? because as it is written, it protects the definition of MARRIAGE! it's not meant to protect the definition of any other type of union, which can be defined by anyone who wants to define them. but marriage is meant to be a holy union, and God never intended the states to re-define that institution.

furthermore, the federal ammendment should be imposed to protect the "will of the people". no state, including massachussetts, has had the support of the majority in changing the definition. that has occurred at the hands of activist judges who have compromised themselves for the votes of powerful lobbyist groups.

the founding fathers did not write the constitution intending (or expecting) the judicial branch to write laws. that is the job of the legislative branch, which is supposed to carry out the will of the people.

your constitution party talks a great speach about protecting the constitution... but they aren't protecting it at all by opposing ammendments that would protect the intent and integrity of that very document.

[WatchingForJesus]

THE MACRO VIEWPOINT

Truth is that nobody here is for gay marriage OR civil unions... sometimes we're in a position where we don't know WHO to back.

In other words...what are the options? Is GWB against the wall? Is he in a  no-win scenario? Can he act without the Congress and Senate? Will they back him if he says NO WAY!

We just dont' see behind the scenes. We don't know what's really going on...and that's what's frustrating. We mean well but only God himself knows the whole truth and what's in a man's heart.

What are we doing? Speculating based on the limited information we have.

But God took the guess work out of it for us.

Look, God told us, "IF my people who are called my my name will repent and turn from their wicked ways I will heal their land..." (paraphrased).

Look, God can make things right again as long as WE, the people of God are on our knees in prayer and in our hearts devoted to Him.

He hasn't destroyed this Sodom of a nation YET because of godly Christians.

His patience WILL run out...I can only hope God will take us out of Sodom ..send His holy angels to take us out of here and then do what He must do according to His righteous decrees.

Great post catsmeow! :t:

Look, God told us, "IF my people who are called my my name will repent and turn from their wicked ways I will heal their land..." (paraphrased).

Look, God can make things right again as long as WE, the people of God are on our knees in prayer and in our hearts devoted to Him.

AMEN! I just hope that we still have time to make things right again... based on what is happening in the world and the fact that homosexuality seems to be on a run-a-way freight train, I don't know how much longer we have here.

He hasn't destroyed this Sodom of a nation YET because of godly Christians.

His patience WILL run out...I can only hope God will take us out of Sodom ..send His holy angels to take us out of here and then do what He must do according to His righteous decrees.

Fortunately there are several verses in the Bible that make it clearly evident that when God judges this nation, along with the rest of the world, we won't be anywhere to be found here on earth. (And even if you believe in the Post-Trib rapture, we will still be protected from God's wrath if we are still here.) For those of us who have already accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. Here is one of them:

1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, (KJV)

You have a very sweet spirit catsmeow!

YBIC,

Bradley

[WatchingForJesus]

i told you what i thought of your list of his fruits. but we'll skip that part and go on to this.

GOD defined marriage. HE defined it as between man and woman. marriage is a HOLY union. (or should be anyway.)

there are all  sorts of other contractual unions, whether between a man and a woman or between corporations or whatever. the one GOD defines is marriage.

homosexuality is here to stay, unfortunately. and christians are not going to be able to get the ACLU and other activists off the issue.

the federal ammendment SHOULD be imposed, forget the 'states rights issue'. why? because as it is written, it protects the definition of MARRIAGE! it's not meant to protect the definition of any other type of union, which can be defined by anyone who wants to define them. but marriage is meant to be a holy union, and God never intended the states to re-define that institution.

furthermore, the federal ammendment should be imposed to protect the "will of the people". no state, including massachussetts, has had the support of the majority in changing the definition. that has occurred at the hands of activist judges who have compromised themselves for the votes of powerful lobbyist groups.

the founding fathers did not write the constitution intending (or expecting) the judicial branch to write laws. that is the job of the legislative branch, which is supposed to carry out the will of the people.

your constitution party talks a great speach about protecting the constitution... but they aren't protecting it at all by opposing ammendments that would protect the intent and integrity of that very document.

LadyC,

We can agree on the fact that we are both opposed to homosexuality and that it is clearly pointed out in the Bible that it is a sin.

We agree that God defined marriage.

We can also agree that laws were not supposed to be written by the judicial branch. That is why each state has it's own legislative branch.

That is where we differ in our opinion. I think that the individual states should have the power to decide (yes, based on the "will of the people, not the judicial branch). You think (correct me if I am wrong) that the federal government should step in and protect the "will of the people".

I would love to see that happen, but at the same time, here is the challenge. If we let the federal government tell the states what to do on this issue, then what is to stop them from telling the states what to do on many other issues. To the point, where states start to lose their individual sovereignty.

The same sort of issue comes up in regards to allowing the UN to tell the United States what they can and cannot do. Although, I sadly think that one day, there will be some form of world government that ushers in the AC and the world government will be policed all the way down to the local police stations. But, that's a whole nuther topic.

Believe me LadyC, I am very torn about this because I believe strongly in the rights of our constitution, the way our forefathers set it up. But, I also agree strongly that something should be done to stop the "civil unions". I fear, based on the situation that you mention about lobbyist groups, that there really isn't anything we can do, on a legal level. Especially if the judicial branch is going to do what it just did in Mass.

However, based on catsmeow's post, I think the only thing that we as Christians can do is get down on our knees and pray.

I would like to say that I appreciate you keeping your cool as we discuss this. That is to be admired, because I can sense your frustration, but you have not allowed yourself to lash out.

YBIC,

Bradley